Citation Nr: 22014303 Decision Date: 03/12/22 Archive Date: 03/12/22 DOCKET NO. 09-08 049 DATE: March 12, 2022 ORDER New and material evidence has been received and the claim for service connection for mixed personality disorder is reopened. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for mixed personality disorder is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. A July 1983 Board decision last denied entitlement to service connection for a chronic acquired psychiatric disorder. The Veteran did not appeal the denial to the Court of Appeals for Veteran's Claims (Court). Thus, the July 1983 Board decision became final. 2. The evidence added to the record since the July 1983 Board decision raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. CONCLUSION OF LAW New and material evidence has been received to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for mixed personality disorder. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.104, 3.156, 19.52. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from January 1980 to September 1981. The Veteran appeals a December 2014 rating decision by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ), which denied reopening the claim for service connection for mixed personality disorder. In a July 2018 decision, the Board denied reopening the claim. The Veteran appealed that denial to the Court. In February 2020, the Court issued a memorandum decision vacating the Board's decision and remanding the claim for a materiality determination on particular evidence. In a November 2020 decision, the Board again denied reopening the claim. The Veteran appealed that denial to the Court. In November 2021, the Court granted a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR) filed by representatives for both parties and remanded it to the Board for further proceedings consistent with the JMPR. The case has returned to the Board for further appellate proceedings. As noted above, the Board has found that new and material evidence has been received to reopen the claim for service connection for mixed personality disorder. Having reopened the claim, the Board must consider whether the Veteran is entitled to service connection for the same. The Board notes that a personality disorder, by itself, is not a disability for which service connection may be granted. Congenital or developmental defects, personality disorders, and mental deficiency are not diseases or injuries within the meaning of applicable legislation. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(c). However, disability resulting from a mental disorder superimposed upon a personality disorder may be service connected. 38 C.F.R. § 4.127. The Veteran is already service connected for an anxiety disorder. On remand, the Veteran should be afforded an examination to determine whether he has an acquired psychiatric disability, other than his anxiety disorder, superimposed on his mixed personality disorder. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any outstanding VA and/or private treatment records relevant to treatment the Veteran received for his mixed personality disorder that are not already of record. All obtained records should be associated with the evidentiary record. If any identified records are not obtainable (or none exist), the Veteran and his representative should be notified, and the record clearly documented. 2. After the above development is completed, schedule the Veteran for an examination to determine the nature and etiology of any acquired psychiatric disability superimposed on his mixed personality disorder. The evidentiary record, including a copy of this remand, must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. The examination must include a notation that this record review took place. Following review of the record and examination of the Veteran, the examiner is asked to respond to the following inquiries: A. Whether it is at least as likely as not that any acquired psychiatric disorder was superimposed on the Veteran's mixed personality disorder, resulting in additional disability. B. If so, is it at least as likely as not that the Veteran's superimposed psychiatric disorder was incurred in, or is otherwise related to, his time on active service? The examiner is reminded that the Veteran is already service connected for other specified anxiety disorder. In rendering these opinions, the examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms and history. Such reports must be acknowledged and considered in formulating any opinion. If the examiner rejects the Veteran's reports, he or she must provide an explanation for such rejection. The examiner is not to improperly discount the Veteran's lay statements or mistakenly rely on an absence of medical evidence in the record to support his or her conclusions. The complete rationale for all opinions should be set forth and a discussion of the facts and medical principles involved would be of considerable assistance to the Board. (Continued on the next page) If an opinion cannot be provided without resorting to mere speculation, the examiner must provide a complete explanation for why an opinion cannot be rendered. In so doing, the examiner must explain whether the inability to provide a more definitive opinion is the result of a need for additional information, or that he or she has exhausted the limits of current medical knowledge in providing an answer to that particular question. 3. After the above has been completed to the extent possible, readjudicate the claims. If any benefit sought remains denied, provide the Veteran and his representative with a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC), and return the case to the Board. DONNIE R. HACHEY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Strickland The Board's decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.